UK to warn public every week over 'no-deal Brexit': The Times

[whatsupdoc]

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Only a minor part of the brexit argument was to do with trade and the economy.

 

When will the eu emus ever acknowledge this?? 

 

 

Whatever the major part of the Brexit argument was....... where Brexit will make any real difference does have to do with trade and the economy.

[SheungWan]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

Only a minor part of the brexit argument was to do with trade and the economy.

When will the eu emus ever acknowledge this??

Actually that's right. The neconomy is/can be shrugged off to (fingers crossed) believed short-term collateral damage. Note Boris's comment re UK business. Unfortunately its all hot air as far as impact is concerned...and then there is the Nissan 'hook'.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

Whatever the major part of the Brexit argument was....... where Brexit will make any real difference does have to do with trade and the economy.

Well that post certainly reinforces my statement. Thankyou.

[whatsupdoc]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Well that post certainly reinforces my statement. Thankyou.

I do not see how, but anyway, glad that I could help ?

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Actually that's right. The neconomy is/can be shrugged off to (fingers crossed) believed short-term collateral damage. Note Boris's comment re UK business. Unfortunately its all hot air as far as impact is concerned...and then there is the Nissan 'hook'.

Your words. Not mine. I don't agree that economy can be simply "shrugged off". But as ever, the economy is the only angle you have.  

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

I do not see how, but anyway, glad that I could help ?

I know you don't. 

[sandyf]

22 hours ago, nauseus said:

Only a minor part of the brexit argument was to do with trade and the economy.

 

When will the eu emus ever acknowledge this?? 

 

 

The brexit approach, when you have no constructive answer change the context.

[Grouse]

If you disregard economic issues, what precisely are the major tangible benefits of Brexit?

 

From an economic point of view I see:

 

1) Being just outside the fence rather than being just inside the fence will hugely damage our services particularly finanancial due to loss of passporting

 

2) Foreign direct investment will be badly affected. If, for example, Mazda decided to manufacture in Europe, do you think it would follow Toyota, Nissan and Honda? No, of course not.

 

3) Major large scale manufacturers WILL shift part of their facilities or implement future expansion into the the EU.

 

As the Rogers' speech explained, the sovereignty issue is a red herring.

 

We should remain on condition that free movement is curtailed. Linked to population density limits ( throttle for countries over 250 / km2? Limit migration by country ( max 5000 per annum per country)?

 

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/european-countries-by-population-density.html

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

The brexit approach, when you have no constructive answer change the context.

Your inaccurate statement did not require an answer.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

If you disregard economic issues, what precisely are the major tangible benefits of Brexit?

 

From an economic point of view I see:

 

1) Being just outside the fence rather than being just inside the fence will hugely damage our services particularly finanancial due to loss of passporting

 

2) Foreign direct investment will be badly affected. If, for example, Mazda decided to manufacture in Europe, do you think it would follow Toyota, Nissan and Honda? No, of course not.

 

3) Major large scale manufacturers WILL shift part of their facilities or implement future expansion into the the EU.

 

As the Rogers' speech explained, the sovereignty issue is a red herring.

 

We should remain on condition that free movement is curtailed. Linked to population density limits ( throttle for countries over 250 / km2? Limit migration by country ( max 5000 per annum per country)?

 

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/european-countries-by-population-density.html

Good Day Grouse,

 

I read the Rogers speech but would need to read it again a few times. It is good but it is only an opinion nevertheless and the full legality and effects of loss of sovereignty are not accounted for. He considers mainly economic aspects, as most remainers do. They don't want to go anywhere else.

 

The main problem with the EU is the issue of trust (as is the main problem with most governments) and I don't trust it. The EU ultimate supranational goals are no secret; they might be on hold for now but they still exist.

 

I know many of the people arriving into the UK make a decent economic contribution but others do not and are non-productive. Continued mass immigration and/or free movement into the UK on recent scales will eventually become an overwhelming financial burden, crash the economy anyway, then the UK will be completely broken and changed forever. I don't want to see that. 

 

If you could tell me that only 5,000 would migrate into the UK every year then I would listen. But would you really expect me to believe it?

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

We should remain on condition that free movement is curtailed. Linked to population density limits ( throttle for countries over 250 / km2? Limit migration by country ( max 5000 per annum per country)?

My point again. We have very high density and that will increase massively if Scotland leaves. There is scope to limit immigration on that basis alone

 

The 5000 was per original country. Choose your own figure.

[nauseus]

25 minutes ago, Grouse said:

My point again. We have very high density and that will increase massively if Scotland leaves. There is scope to limit immigration on that basis alone

 

The 5000 was per original country. Choose your own figure.

Grouse, I'm afraid that you have managed quote yourself but with my name indicated. 

[Grouse]

56 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Grouse, I'm afraid that you have managed quote yourself but with my name indicated. 

It sounds better coming from you!

 

Sorry about that. I quoted my words that you had quoted.

[melvinmelvin]

On 8/10/2018 at 8:03 AM, SheungWan said:

A list of disconnected statements that do not lead one from another at all apart from pet nostrums. It would be better for some Remainers (and Brexiteers) to focus on the Hard/ Soft negotiations outcome rather than weakly turning the current situation into a straight Tories Vs Labour simple Simon. and as for the nonsense "Never mind Corbyn, smth different from Tory  must be tried." try something other than shooting your arguments in the foot.

 

My foot can take a shot or two.

 

TORY: came up with the idea of a referendum re EU-yes/no

TORY: phrased the question in the referendum

TORY: did not set up guards re result-interpretation

TORY: carried out the ref.

TORY: interpreted the result of the ref. (hence--no guards established before)

TORY: installed an unelected PM after Cameron pissed off

TORY: came up with DD to do the negotiations, just look at his body language,

           crystal clear very early that he would never be able to produce anything with Barnier

TORY: stuck with DD for a long long time - resulting in close to zilch

TORY: doing a brilliant new vote idea - resulting in being in prison with a bunch of Irish

TORY: not doing anything re WTO, cannot trade WTO without schedule/service-profile, 

            this is not difficult - but very time consuming to establish

 

I see tory tory down down all the way

time to try smth else

 

 

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

On 8/3/2018 at 12:15 AM, SheungWan said:

 

That would come as somewhat of surprise to UK neo-fascist organisation the BNP which is firmly for Brexit. Any more nonsensical observations from you two?

 

No. Not at all. Obviously, today's neo fascists would support Brexit.

 

However, we talked about Adolf H, we did not talk about today's fascists.

 

[kwilco]

Bereft of any real argument, Brexiteers like to invoke the mantra of "scaremonger" to anything they find unsettling.

It is about time that they realised the strangulation of trade  will be very real, significant and immediate.

The kind of attitude displayed in this article underlines the head in the sand ineptitude that typifies Brexitism......

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/15/chris-grayling-has-no-credible-plan-no-deal-brexit-road-hauliers/